#11... the review on the 3.0C used PC800 RDRAM's and this one uses DDR400. That's one difference... they may have also used slightly different options for testing since they seem to customize the benchmark.Reply

What really buggers me off is that I can't see any of the attached images in this article as I am using Opera 7.11 on a linux box. Please make your site all OS- and browser-compatible. (At least to some extent anyway). Not everyone uses IE and Windows.Reply

There looks to be something fishy about this review anyway. The P4 1.6A is probably ahead of the 1600+ in most benchmarks. When those chips were new, the 1600+ looked very clearly faster. I'm not sure whether SSE2 has really made all that difference - the relative performances must have changed by about 10-20%.Reply

So P4 for multimedia and Athlon XP for general office, right? Since 95% of the systems I recommend or build rarely see streaming video or 3D, then AMD is the better value for me. I think Anand is undervaluing the Business Winstone 2002 results in the overall conclusion.Reply

This is the typical review that one might see from the Wall Street based analysts that know virtually nothing about Processor technology, and prefer to keep their heads stuck in the sand. The XP3200 was extremely competitive with the original (read NOT 800 FSB) Pentiums, which is all that AMD had to compare it with at the time of intro.

It is interesting that Intel always seems to have the newest design "waiting in reserve" for when AMD presents its newest design. What would happen if AMD never introduced another new processor? Would that mean that the newest offering from Intel would never arrive on the marketplace? You can bet on it. Instead of using Intel-oriented benchmarks and downplaying the extraordinary lengths that AMD has gone to over the last 3-4 years, you should be realistic and point to the advantages that the mere presence of AMD has created for consumers.

For the money, the AMD line is still the best value, and can equal the performance of the Pentium line is virtually all the everyday uses for a PC.

Please try to keep some shred of perspective in the future. Thanks.Reply

From 1 Anonymous User to another, you are an idiot. PS2 as the best gaming platform? X-Box has better hardware in all respects, so as consoles go it is technically better. PS2 still has more games..and relating to sports that is where the console usually shines over the PC. But neither can do what a PC with proper hardware can do, in any aspect. So yes, the PC is the ultimate gaming platform, hence why both the PS2 and X-box are more like pc's than old consoles.

Also this review had a benchmark on general use, including office, etc...and AMD won nicely, so if you read the whole article your complaint was solved before you made it. But most of us do play games, which is why most benchmarks are game related, non gamers usually don't go for top end, cause they don't need it. Hopefully you will post a better message next time or at least be more informed on the facts before dribbling false info.Reply

What about Office application performance? I read that the Athlon still blows away the P4 in most everything but games. Most of us spend our PC time doing other things besides gaming. If we wanted the best gaming platform, we'd buy Playtstation 2's.Reply